User:MarkH21
     
User talk:MarkH21
     
User:MarkH21/toolbox
     
Special:Contributions/MarkH21
Main
     
Talk
     
Toolbox
     
Contributions

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sir. Vassel Johnson - Notable Caymanians - Cayman IslandsEdit

Sir. Vassel Johnson was added to notable Caymanian list but was removed. His name needs to be added back to that list. Truth be told he is one of the most important notable Caymanian's to be on the list. Fyi yes they named one of the University Halls after him. He was Army Home Guard in Cayman during WW2 he was Financial Secretary of Cayman he was a Politician in Cayman and he was the first and only Caymanian to be knighted by H.M. Queen Elizabeth II. He helped build Cayman international recognition. I'm surprised to the fact he has not been on the notable Caymanian's list from before. ~~Scottish Caymanian~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish Caymanian (talkcontribs) 13:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scottish Caymanian: A subject needs an existing article on them to be added to “Notable X” lists, whereas there is no article on Vassel Johnson.
Should you wish to create an article, be aware that the Wikipedia notability guidelines determine whether an article should exist for someone. If the subject does not clearly meet any of the guideline criteria, the article will be subject to deletion. Note that any claims to notability must be supported by clear citations to reliable sources. — MarkH21talk 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

please help put https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alon_Kaplan in Wikipedia he is very important layer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.55.110 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for UriyangkhadaiEdit

 On 18 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uriyangkhadai, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mongol general Uriyangkhadai invaded the territory of the Song dynasty in southern China by going through Tibet and Vietnam? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uriyangkhadai. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Uriyangkhadai), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Semisimple representationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Semisimple representation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Article review requestEdit

I've completely revamped the article Police misconduct allegations during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Can you please take a look at it and remove the NPOV tag if you think it's ok. Thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Thanks for your work on the article! It definitely looks improved. I’ll take a more thorough look in the coming days and reconsider the tag accordingly. — MarkH21talk 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: Just letting you know that I haven't forgotten about this; part of the delay is that there's quite a bit to go through! As a preliminary remark, I am still finding some instances of sources being slightly misrepresented in tone or presented as matter-of-fact in WP voice. These will need to be carefully adjusted to accurately reflect the original sources’ meanings.
On a related note, I think it might be worth limiting the allegations included to those with reports by at least two separate reliable sources. Otherwise, the criteria for inclusion is weak enough for loose speculation that may detract from the more serious allegations and contribute to the wall-of-text effect. — MarkH21talk 10:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luckEdit

Textbook templateEdit

Hi. I just saw your recent edits on the SU(3) Clebsch article (with which I fully agree), and further in Representation theory of the Lorentz group. The template of the latter is accurate, of course, but it can be easily misconstrued by experts who cannot stand obvious trivialities. The fact is, however, that, having sent generations of desperate students to this article, and witnessed their delight, I've come to appreciate that a bit of a simulacrum of a textbook might not be a bad thing: readers go to it more often to learn than to review what they already know.

I watched the heroic editor who put it together from some distance as he was doing it, and I think he did a good job not assuming too much. It could, and should, be improved, of course, but not at the expense of dropping introductory material that overwhelmed or unmotivated, or lazy, students do not know where else to go for. I suspect if you perused that article's statistics you might appreciate its success. So, even if the template should be salutary, maybe we should all make sure it only leads to dropping resolutely superfluous stuff. It has been the go-to tutorial for generations of students. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cuzkatzimhut: Hi! I appreciate your detailed comments on this. The issue is the writing style moreso than the content of Representation theory of the Lorentz group (and some related articles). The article can retain its educational value without its prose being self-referential or first/second-person. I think that this can be fixed without any change to its usefulness to students. I might work to change the writing style to present the same facts in a third-person encyclopedic tone (so mostly superficial). That's the main aim of the template.
On the side though, I do think that some large sections of background already contained in other articles may need to be dropped (particularly in the first section "Non-technical introduction to representation theory" which really should be reserved only for survey articles, notes, and textbooks...). — MarkH21talk 05:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Full agreement on style, but I’d argue for condensing, not dropping background... students won’t go to other articles. They welcome a survey... They are mostly QFT students. Mathematically adept readers may always skip the stuff.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Re article Omer TarinEdit

Hello MarkH21, regarding the article Omer Tarin, I am sorry but I disagree with your recent edit/removal today. I dont think it is about religion, Omer Tarin is a noted poet and a mystic /Sufi and his poetry is centered around his mystic philosophy and I think that he mentions this himself in his various texts and interviews. In addition, his Sufism is central to his work, poetic and social and inextricably linked. If it's ok, I shall re add the note or edit/rewrite ? Regards AsadUK200 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC){{AsadUK200))

His notability is not from him being a Sufi, but from his Sufi-inspired poetry - this is an important distinction. Perhaps Sufi poet would be a more accurate description. As a side note, him mentioning this has little value; we should be using secondary descriptions rather than primary descriptions. — MarkH21talk 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Centuries/millenia distinctionsEdit

We've already made such distinctions clear in the articles for the 21st century, the 20th century, the 2nd millennium the 3rd millennium, and so on. So I'm wondering why they were deemed unnecessary for the articles I've edited, but not the aforementioned ones. SillySympathy3 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@SillySympathy3: That's a fair point. I'm leaning towards it being unnecessary in all of those articles, but I'll start a talk page post asking for consensus first since those articles have heavier traffic. — MarkH21talk 12:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Semisimple representationEdit

 On 8 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Semisimple representation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Clebsch–Gordan coefficients, which describe how spinning objects influence each other in quantum mechanics, come from the structure of semisimple representations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Semisimple representation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Semisimple representation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

LimousineEdit

"leaves too much space before sections". I don't understand that please would you explain. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Notice that there is a lot of space between the end of the table of contents and the start of the "Etymology" section in the old revision due to the three photos on the top right. I removed one of the photos so that there is no excess space. — MarkH21talk 10:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The space you speak of does not happen for me. I wondered if you might be using a particular type of phone or something. Eddaido (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm on Chrome on a laptop. — MarkH21talk 10:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eddaido: I did some responsive screen testing and it seems to happen when the resolution width is greater than around 1150 pixels. — MarkH21talk 10:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You've just gone too technical for me. No one else has ever complained and I'd much prefer dumping the pink monstrosity - but that's a matter of taste. Anyway, now I better understand why you did it. Eddaido (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eddaido: Feel free to swap the pictures around - I made the change purely to get rid of the extra spacing! — MarkH21talk 10:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

CitiationEdit

Hello Mark, how do you put citations to sources when you put down information? Gca.345 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gca.345: As was pointed out by a few other editors and myself on your talk page, see the guide here or this tutorial. — MarkH21talk 22:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I can assure you the edits I make are up to date and from a source. Gca.345 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gca.345: I never doubted that they were, but you need to ensure that your edits follow the English Wikipedia verifiability policy, i.e. show that they come from reliable sources. — MarkH21talk 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete this pageEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Junk_Miles?fbclid=IwAR04YCHgtgbMs5YyKbxT3EqsXpOys4AmuvY2ZasBIi6mYkFAFmaWrPb5qIQ

This page captures one of the pioneering podcasts in an emerging industry. While largely ignored by traditional media sources, those who follow podcasting and specifically track trends in outdoor leisure/sports genre, will largely point to Scott Kummer, and by extension Ten Junk Miles, as a pioneering thought leader in the genre. Mr. Kummer's leadership has led to many in outdoor sports and leisure mirroring his format and style. Deleting this page would risk loosing a piece of the early history of a thought leader in an emerging field. --Dkhale (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wkkipedia is not for cataloging what might become important in the future or preserving the early history of niche subjects that aren’t covered by media / academic sources. Please read the notability guidelines for what notability here means. — MarkH21talk 20:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer grantedEdit

Hi MarkH21. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Page mover grantedEdit

Hello, MarkH21. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sushree DibyadarshiniEdit

Hi. I just added a keep vote on the AfD you started for her. I wanted to add here that my response in the AfD is in no way a criticism of you - I can see how it might be interpreted as such! I understand the rationale behind the nom and it has a perfectly solid basis. Perhaps it's just a subject area (women's cricket) where I'd be inclined to be a little more lenient when it comes to notability because of some of the wider gender-related issues surrounding the sport. Maybe that's not a good enough reason for voting to keep, perhaps it is, I don't know - but it was a decision I had to think about for a while before I made it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Thanks for the message and carefully thought out position! I don’t honestly know much about the professional cricket world, and I just stumbled across the article and applied the existing cricket notability guideline and GNG based on past consensus. The leniency and flexibility, particularly when dealing with systemic bias, is certainly a reasonable and positive stance.
From my perspective, she plays in a (relatively) poorly-covered league and the B national team in a shortened version of the sport, so it seems reasonable to me that she would fail the SNG. Defaulting to GNG, she falls just short for me. However, I can certainly see your position and thank you for carefully explaining it. I don’t take any offense and I wouldn’t be displeased if the AfD went either way. — MarkH21talk 09:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

JezwebEdit

Hi MarkH21, I got 6 sources from google news and google books what other things need to improve article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talkcontribs) 04:36, January 15, 2020 (UTC)

@Mayur Bhatt Shiv: The article needs independent reliable sources that cover Jezweb in detail. — MarkH21talk 07:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Antun DomicEdit

Greetings MarkH21. I noticed several edits from you and Marco60cr. While I do really appreciate your attempt to improve my article, I feel your edits specifically have oversimplified my article. It seems to me that you did not read the references carefully. I do understand that you are a Veteran Editor, but possibly not en EDA Veteran. Tdk20063 (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tdk20063: Content was removed where it was not verified by a reliable source. There was a lot of content with no citation whatsoever and a lot of content where there were citations for minor details but no references for the main claims. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is of paramount importance. — MarkH21talk 10:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Antun DomicEdit

Hello MarkH21. Dr. Domic, who is 68, retired over a year ago, and is currently a part-time lecturer at Stanford University under Prof. Subhasish Mitra. Regarding your comments about Domic-Toledo, Google gives me several papers referring to both invariant and space. As far as I understand, they were among the first to prove Milnor-Wood Inequality. Your approach to review looks to me iconoclastic. Take Care. Marco60cr (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marco60cr: You need to provide a reliable reference demonstrating these facts. Your claim about the Milnor–Wood inequality is dubious considering that it refers to a theorem proved by Milnor in 1958 and a theorem proved by Wood in 1971. — MarkH21talk 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: 2018, Oskar Garcia-Prada in "Higgs bundles and higher Teichmueller spaces" (https://grk1670.math.uni-hamburg.de/higgs2018/Higgs-Garcia-Prada.pdf) : in the context of representations the inequality|τ| ≤rk(G/H)(2g−2), goes back to Milnor [Mil58], who studies the case G= SL(2,R), as mentioned above, and was proved in various cases in [Woo71,Dup78,DT87,CO03], and in general by Burger–Iozzi–Wienhard [BIW10]. Take Care. Marco60cr (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Marco60cr: Sure, and that's different from what was written in the article before. They proved one of the real semisimple Lie group cases for G. That's something that can be said in the article. The previous content about the Toledo invariant and its role with the Higgs bundle is not directly connected to Domic. — MarkH21talk 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blue-green deployments are not a form of A/B testingEdit

Hi MarkH21!

I saw your contribution to the blue-green deployment article where you specified it is a kind of A/B testing, but I think this isn't always the case. Even if blue-green deployment is associated with A/B testing, blue-green deployment is actually just a method of deploying code changes - unrelated to whether there is A/B testing. My association with A/B testing is on the public side - delivering two different experiences to users, and there may be some mechanism that determines which experience the user receives, or which server handles the request. Then analysis of the users' experiences across the two different versions helps inform which version should become the main production version going forward. In contrast, blue-green deployments one of the servers is explicitly not public facing while the other is. As a consequence I think blue-green deployments are fairly unrelated to A/B testing. This isn't just my opinion, either. For example, see the article cited in the wiki article for blue-green deployment: https://web.archive.org/web/20180330100354/https://blog.christianposta.com/deploy/blue-green-deployments-a-b-testing-and-canary-releases/

This article explicitly says:

A/B testing is NOT blue-green deployments. ... The difference between blue-green deployments and A/B testing is A/B testing is for measuring functionality in the app. Blue-green deployments is about releasing new software safely and rolling back predictably.

As a result, I think it is incredibly misleading to say blue-green deployments is an "A/B testing" method of deployment, since those two ideas are orthogonal. I wanted to talk to you first before I actually undid you change, but to me your addition is misleading at best and possibly just false.

Thanks!

Laelius Linguae (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Laelius Linguae: Thanks for pointing this out! Yes, it would be good to explain the differences here in the article itself. Be sure to use a reliable source though, since the one you linked is a blog. — MarkH21talk 16:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

ARTICLE REVIEWEdit

Could you please help me review my new articles? MBM Avoseh O. A. Akinyeye Abosede George Thank you. WS — Preceding unsigned comment added by WheelHelms WS (talkcontribs) 17:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ApologyEdit

It was not an accusation of sockpuppetry at all, but it was uncivil, was and is entirely withdrawn, and I have apologised to you and Sandstein on his talk page. Bookscale (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)